What is the “right” approach to reviewing a retro game?

[DefaultGen | 5,399]

It has to be a mix of historical context and how much timeless fun (or innovation) it provides. Saying Atari Air-Sea Battle is a 1/10 compared to Doom Eternal is pretty dumb. But it's also not very useful to say it's a 10/10 because in the context of 1977, most games were pretty garbage and Air-Sea Battle the most playable relative to all of those.

I think plenty of games are accused of "aging poorly" when they were never very good to begin with and people are blinded by something new and shiny. Assassin's Creed got loads of praise because 3D parkour was relatively new and exciting, even though the actual gameplay was entirely repetitive and tedious. Minecraft on the other hand has a timeless art style and flexible gameplay that appeals to a broad spectrum of people. It's pretty easy to see it will remain as ageless as Super Mario Bros. or Castlevania SOTN.

And the people who say stuff like all N64 or all NES games have aged poorly are generally people who just think their own nostalgia bubble like Gamecube or whatever is the only classic period of games and everything before that is unplayable, so they don't have a very holistic view of games in general.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

1 hour ago, peg said:

In the sense that Goldeneye 64 has always sucked and doom has always been awesome, yes.

"Goldeneye sucks" - said nobody in 1997, barring maybe a handful of Quake snobs

[peg | 370]

24 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

"Goldeneye sucks" - said nobody in 1997, barring maybe a handful of Quake snobs

I was saying it sucked back then and I wasn't much of a quake fan either, always thought it looked like ass. Doom and Duke Nukem 3d were where it was at.  

[Tulpa | 3,488]

1 hour ago, Sumez said:

aaaand this is exactly why I stand by everything I said in the exact post that you quoted.  

I dunno. If it was the best at the time, say 1985, and now there are better options to do the same gameplay, did it truly suck back then? Or did it just get superseded?

 

[Strange | 1,700]

I want to ask another question: Do people who only experience a game via emulator have the authority to critique them? Might be a dumb question but not all emulators are equal and some can hamper the experience from sound to visuals etc.

Regarding Pong: Does the existence of Tennis on NES invalidate Pong? Tennis and countless others are built off of Pong’s foundation. There may be shinier or updated versions of a landmark game or gameplay concept, but the existence of these is proof of greatness imo. 

Super Mario 64’s controls/camera are cumbersome by any metric today. But that’s a game I love and could play forever. How do you quantify that? Especially for people who weren’t around when it was new like we were?

Just some jumbled thoughts. Great thread.
 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

1 hour ago, The Strangest said:

I want to ask another question: Do people who only experience a game via emulator have the authority to critique them?

Not only that, but using emulators on modern widescreen LED's, so both the input device (controller/keyboard) and the output device (monitor) are not what the game was originally designed on/for.  I've always been against using emulation myself, excepting for the purposes of checking out a game you don't own for research for whatever reason, and it bugs me that emulation is always allowed in online contests and "All Games Beaten in a Year" threads and whatnot, but hey, not all people own all games, so what other alternative is there?

Edited January 25, 2021 by Dr. Morbis

[Homer | 17]

6 hours ago, peg said:

I was saying it sucked back then and I wasn't much of a quake fan either, always thought it looked like ass. Doom and Duke Nukem 3d were where it was at.  

Yeah, I thought it sucked too.  But multiplayer couch co-op with non computer friends was fun.

[Sumez | 2,933]

7 hours ago, Tulpa said:

I dunno. If it was the best at the time, say 1985, and now there are better options to do the same gameplay, did it truly suck back then? Or did it just get superseded?

Well, that's the thing isn't it. If something was superseded by everything, or at least most things made in the same style since it, then yeah I'd say it definitely wasn't very good in the first place. Why would you think so? I honestly can't think of any single game you could say is made completely redundant by a later one, that I ever thought was "good enough" before that later one existed.

It also depends on what you mean by "superseded", it's hard to look at one element of a game and say it's objectively done better by another game, because you have to look at the whole. Super Mario Bros. 3 has prettier graphics, way more variation in locales and unique ideas in each individual stage than SMB1, and then look at a much newer game like Symphony of the Night, which is also a platform game, but has a huge interconnected map with a lot of exploration, interaction between characters, an inventory, spells, familiars, and skills you can level up, etc.
SMB1 has none of that, so does SOTN supersede SMB1? I love both games a lot, but they are different games and should be doing different things. I'll still put SMB1 on today, and I'll be having exactly as much fun with it as I did back when I first got it. I don't have to put an asterisk on that, and state that you have to consider all the shortcomings of the NES and the time it came out to enjoy it like that, because it was never a part of the equation, it's a fun game irregardless.

Things might be a little different when you look at something like a simulation game, which is mostly "better" or "worse" in terms almost exclusively based on how well it simulates the real experience it is going for. But on the other hand, I don't think you have to be a fortune teller to conclude that Pole Position maybe wasn't the most realistic reproduction of a racing game that you could imagine.

[fcgamer | 4,719]

I look at a game and look at it in context to its peers, the date it was released, the company that made it , innovation, historical context, etc.

Let's take Chris Covell's Solar Wars for example. IIRC, the game was quite simple for a NES homebrew, but at the time it was essentially the only homebrew NES rom that was at a point where it could be considered a full game. So to compare it to something like Battle Kid would not be fair. 

Or another example would be Master Chu and the Drunkard Hu, the game everyone loves to hate on. To be honest, I've heard that this game was a huge deal in Taiwan, being one of the earliest platformers produced by a Taiwanense company on Famicom /NES, and then at that, it featured their mythology so to speak. It was an ambitious project, though any western review of the Color Dreams release will give it maybe a 2 or 3 at best. Interestingly enough, I'd even wonder if some of the guys at Color Dreams thought that the game was good, I mean it depends if they were gamers at all or not.

So I try to look at games within the greater context, which is why I personally feel that a game like Lin Banned the Opium kicks ass, despite everyone's first judgement of it.

To compare Pong to Super Mario Bros, or Mario to Grand Theft Auto is silly, unless we are comparing and judging the impact each game had. Otherwise, reviewing games in this matter is pointless.

 

[Sumez | 2,933]

5 hours ago, The Strangest said:

Super Mario 64’s controls/camera are cumbersome by any metric today. But that’s a game I love and could play forever. How do you quantify that? Especially for people who weren’t around when it was new like we were?

Worth noting here, that when Super Mario 64 was new, people were absolutely moaning about the camera controls as well. Honestly, even to a bigger degree than I ever hear nowadays. Although it's definitely something you can say has been improved in other games over time, the controls in Mario 64 remain the same - they aren't relative to what else is out there, and whether you feel the controls are something that hampers the game isn't something that depends on your place in time.

5 hours ago, The Strangest said:

Regarding Pong: Does the existence of Tennis on NES invalidate Pong? Tennis and countless others are built off of Pong’s foundation. There may be shinier or updated versions of a landmark game or gameplay concept, but the existence of these is proof of greatness imo. 

Nah, they are very different games, because in Tennis you have a different range of movement, and a timing element to your button presses. The rules of a Tennis game are also very different from just whether you let the ball pass you. Pong is inherently simplistic, and you can't really add anything to it without changing the fundamentals. That'd be like saying adding the hold feature definitely improves Tetris, when it fact it changes the game to something different entirely, and something that a lot of people don't actually like. The difference of course is that pong isn't that fun to begin with.  

I'd be more hard pressed to argue why you should play NES Tennis over Virtua Tennis though. But I'm sure the game has fans that'll find something unique in the NES game.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Sumez

[BortLicensePlate | 652]

I dont know why there's this need to compare everything though.

Like yeah comparing contra to the witcher is dumb and says nothing about the merits of either game because they were trying to achieve completely different things.

But even comparing say Mario World to Mario 3, is world "technically" superior, sure. But does that affect how much fun Mario 3 is? I dont think so personally. Mario 3 is a fun game, just because Mario World now exists doesn't change that. More levels, longer levels, being able to save, doesn't necessarily make a better game. They're both platformers and if the running and jumping feels good, what's the problem?

I dunno, not directed at anybody but I see the comparison thing coming up a bit. It's fair to see how one game stacks up in its respective genre as a whole, but they're all different games whether they're from the same series or not. So comparing one game to one other game doesn't really help much. If I like Mario World, I would probably like Mario 3 as well, it doesn't have to be a competition between the 2, right?

[BortLicensePlate | 652]

7 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

Not only that, but using emulators on modern widescreen LED's, so both the input device (controller/keyboard) and the output device (monitor) are not what the game was originally designed on/for.  I've always been against using emulation myself, excepting for the purposes of checking out a game you don't own for research for whatever reason, and it bugs me that emulation is always allowed in online contests and "All Games Beaten in a Year" threads and whatnot, but hey, not all people own all games, so what other alternative is there?

I used to be primarily a crt user but damn are they a pain in the ass to move around haha. I've softened up on using newer displays, and I know it's not the same but I dont really see it as hampering my experience. The controller is a deal breaker for me though, if I'm playing NES, I want an NES controller.

As much as I hate to say it I think using original hardware is getting to be more trouble than its worth.

[Tulpa | 3,488]

8 hours ago, Sumez said:

Well, that's the thing isn't it. If something was superseded by everything, or at least most things made in the same style since it, then yeah I'd say it definitely wasn't very good in the first place. Why would you think so?

Because you probably didn't have much, if anything, to compare it to. Especially in the early gaming days (I should know, I was there for most of it.) We weren't focused on the future, just on what was in front of us on the TV. 

The reevaluation of those games came later, when we actually had more to compare.

8 hours ago, Sumez said:

I honestly can't think of any single game you could say is made completely redundant by a later one, that I ever thought was "good enough" before that later one existed.

So before the later games existed, you were able to assess every game you played with a complete objective mindset? Color me skeptical, but I find that hard to believe. 

Maybe you do. I don't know. But I am certain the vast majority didn't evaluate games that way, until something better came along.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,488]

4 hours ago, BortLicensePlate said:

I used to be primarily a crt user but damn are they a pain in the ass to move around haha. I've softened up on using newer displays, and I know it's not the same but I dont really see it as hampering my experience. The controller is a deal breaker for me though, if I'm playing NES, I want an NES controller.

As much as I hate to say it I think using original hardware is getting to be more trouble than its worth.

I'm with you there.

I want the NES controller. It was just made well for those games. I was holding the controller for hours back then, and the muscle memory is there.

 

[Tulpa | 3,488]

12 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I've always been against using emulation myself, excepting for the purposes of checking out a game you don't own for research for whatever reason, and it bugs me that emulation is always allowed in online contests and "All Games Beaten in a Year" threads and whatnot, but hey, not all people own all games, so what other alternative is there?

If it bugs you, that's a you problem. I think people get a little too hung up on "you got to use all original hardware!" mindset. I mean, if that's your thing, you do you, but criticizing people* because they just happen to use something else just to play the games needs to stop. Are we doing world record speedruns or something? No, we're just playing, and like you said, not all of us have every game. It still keeps the hobby going, and that's the most important thing. We need new blood to enjoy these games so they don't end up in the landfill. Basically, we're all rowing in the same direction, and need to be mindful of it.

Even the "Let's beat the NES library" thread is mostly people having fun. If someone is using emulation to cheat their way through, sure, that's bad form, but I don't see that being widespread.

*and I'm not saying you personally do that, but I have seen it here and elsewhere.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Tulpa

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,011]

I think you could have two scored and then add them together.

You could score the game from the perspective of it's release on level design, music, difficulty, learning curve, story, etc. And then have the same categories just rated against a modern perspective. 

[DoctorEncore | 3,690]

4 hours ago, BortLicensePlate said:

I used to be primarily a crt user but damn are they a pain in the ass to move around haha. I've softened up on using newer displays, and I know it's not the same but I dont really see it as hampering my experience. The controller is a deal breaker for me though, if I'm playing NES, I want an NES controller.

As much as I hate to say it I think using original hardware is getting to be more trouble than its worth.

Agreed! To hell with blurry crt images, I'm in love with the pixel perfect 1080p output from my Analogue consoles. I love the games, not the shitty old technology that we had to use to experience them.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,510]

16 hours ago, peg said:

I was saying it sucked back then and I wasn't much of a quake fan either, always thought it looked like ass. Doom and Duke Nukem 3d were where it was at.  

Then you were an exception to the rule (and I do believe you, because you do have a very strong personality like that).

I actually find some people's pushback on this concept as intriguing as the concept itself.

The original Age of Empires is another great example.  That game got rave reviews and had great sales.  Those are objective truths.  Not because everyone was blind to the game's problems.  But because the genre was in its infancy and just beginning to find its way.  As @Tulpa said, expectations were still being felt out.

I dare you to play that original game now.  And I don't mean anything that was patched or remastered 20 years later.

[GPX | 1,369]

5 hours ago, BortLicensePlate said:

I dont know why there's this need to compare everything though.

Like yeah comparing contra to the witcher is dumb and says nothing about the merits of either game because they were trying to achieve completely different things.

But even comparing say Mario World to Mario 3, is world "technically" superior, sure. But does that affect how much fun Mario 3 is? I dont think so personally. Mario 3 is a fun game, just because Mario World now exists doesn't change that. More levels, longer levels, being able to save, doesn't necessarily make a better game. They're both platformers and if the running and jumping feels good, what's the problem?

I dunno, not directed at anybody but I see the comparison thing coming up a bit. It's fair to see how one game stacks up in its respective genre as a whole, but they're all different games whether they're from the same series or not. So comparing one game to one other game doesn't really help much. If I like Mario World, I would probably like Mario 3 as well, it doesn't have to be a competition between the 2, right?

I think the nature of a review usually is such that you are bound to compare it to a certain gaming standard, and if sequels are involved you often compare it to the prequels to give it some context.

Certainly in the older days when gaming magazines were prominent, gamers were mostly kids or teenagers and we normally didn’t have the funds nor means to access a large library of games. So in the past particularly, gamers would rely heavily on a gaming review prior to purchasing something and you basically wanted to know: “is this game/sequel worth buying relative to other gaming gold standards?” More so in the case of a sequel, you’d want to know if there are further innovations and what kind of enhancements are made, to justify you spending x dollars. 

The other thing to take note is that this comparison rule isn’t just an issue with gaming reviews but it really applies to just about any type of reviews eg. movies, electronic appliances, mobiles etc. For example, if a new Star Wars movie came out, you’d typically ask “how does it compare to the others within the franchise?”

[GPX | 1,369]

16 hours ago, peg said:

I was saying it sucked back then and I wasn't much of a quake fan either, always thought it looked like ass. Doom and Duke Nukem 3d were where it was at.  

I’m guessing you were more a PC fan and not an N64 gamer back then?

[peg | 370]

3 hours ago, GPX said:

I’m guessing you were more a PC fan and not an N64 gamer back then?

By the time people were getting into Goldeneye 64, I had already been playing multiplayer Doom for literally years at that point, and even Duke Nukem 3d and Shadow Warrior multiplayer as well.  Going from that to Goldeneye 64 with its indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back.

 

I get that for people who didn't know anything else it was probably awesome, but for me it was like going back to playing Atari when you were used to NES.

Edited January 25, 2021 by peg

[GPX | 1,369]

5 hours ago, peg said:

By the time people were getting into Goldeneye 64, I had already been playing multiplayer Doom for literally years at that point, and even Duke Nukem 3d and Shadow Warrior multiplayer as well.  Going from that to Goldeneye 64 with its indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back.

 

I get that for people who didn't know anything else it was probably awesome, but for me it was like going back to playing Atari when you were used to NES.

This Goldeneye/Duke Nukem 3D comparison you’re bringing up is relevant to this thread, because context is crucial:

If your review audience are PC gamers, and you say “don’t bother, indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back to first-person shooters”, then this would make a whole lot of sense.

But if your review audience are N64 gamers and wanting to try out all the “classics” for this platform, and you say “don’t bother, indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back to first-person shooters”, then this might be misconstrued as simply a crappy game. For those who’ve never played a first-person shooter on a PC (eg. myself), the advice given here may not be in my best interest as a console gamer.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:19 PM, peg said:

I was saying it sucked back then and I wasn't much of a quake fan either, always thought it looked like ass. Doom and Duke Nukem 3d were where it was at.  

Amen.  I had friends who were nuts about Quake solely because it was the first "real 3D" shooter, but it ran like garbage compared to other games of the era because of that.  Sure, you could rectify that issue to some degree with better/additional hardware, but when everything else (at the time) can just be installed and played, with generally better stories, campaigns, etc., why bother?  Quake was a great tech demo at the time, but it wasn't until the second or third game that it really started being any sort of serious competitor.  And by that point, Half Life was on the scene, pretty much taking id's lunch money.

22 hours ago, Homer said:

Yeah, I thought it sucked too.  But multiplayer couch co-op with non computer friends was fun.

I agree that couch co-op with non-computer friends (or hell, with computer friends as well) is fun, but I never had that experience with that particular game.  One PC friend ended up with an N64 at launch and another couple ended up with them shortly thereafter, each with a copy of Goldeneye somewhere down the line.  While they didn't have quite the same grievances that I had (and have to this day) with the controller (due, primarily, to wanting to play Mario 64 no matter what and just getting used to it because they had to), each one of them ended up selling the game to someone else versus hanging onto it long term.  They'd still bring their controllers over to friends' houses when some sort of N64 multiplayer night was being touted, but nobody really enjoyed Goldeneye after having experienced multiplayer Doom/Doom II, Duke 3D, Redneck Rampage, Shadow Warrior, etc.

4 hours ago, GPX said:

This Goldeneye/Duke Nukem 3D comparison you’re bringing up is relevant to this thread, because context is crucial:

If your review audience are PC gamers, and you say “don’t bother, indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back to first-person shooters”, then this would make a whole lot of sense.

But if your review audience are N64 gamers and wanting to try out all the “classics” for this platform, and you say “don’t bother, indecipherable blurry graphics on top of a pathetically low framerate was a massive step back to first-person shooters”, then this might be misconstrued as simply a crappy game. For those who’ve never played a first-person shooter on a PC (eg. myself), the advice given here may not be in my best interest as a console gamer.

Well...yes and no.  If you lived in that era and had your feet wet in both groups (PC gamers vs console gamers, not necessarily N64 exclusively), then I personally believe that the opinion of even a "lowly" PC gamer is relevant, even if it goes against the grain.  As far as true 3D is concerned, a lot of the N64's library technically blows those same earlier PC games that have been mentioned out of the water, simply because almost none of them are actually true 3D.  However, if you're looking at it through the lens of that era, where the vast majority if people didn't care whether something was truly a skinned 3D object versus a sprite, it really came down to what, to the eye, looked better, and to the person/audience, played better.

As far as the N64 alone is concerned, Goldeneye very well might have been the pinnacle of greatness.  But for the era that it was birthed into overall?  Not even remotely, as there were plenty of games of the same genre outside of the specific sphere of the N64 that held it down and took its lunch money without batting an eye.  Now, in fairness, I think that particular angle should be mentioned in any general review of it versus other games of the era -- it was the pinnacle for the N64, but not so much when acknowledging PCs, other systems, etc.  Leave it to the audience to put themselves into whatever camps they fit into versus speaking to a singular, narrow group, unless that's specifically what you're setting out to do.  I find that folks writing in the former manner seem to gather and hold a more "real" audience whereas the latter just ends up spoon feeding rampant fanboys whatever they feel like hearing.  If folks are just in it for the clicks, I guess they can and will do whatever, but I'd look at a review or two and assess that they're just writing what a specific target audience wants to hear versus providing a true review and then skip them forever more.  To each their own, though.

[Link | 2,708]

I judge a game contemporarily. How does it rate among what was going on at the time? I think it is not fair to rate it against what has came after. Against what came before... is debatable.

Games in a certain franchise or series may work on a different scale in some people opinions. In my opinion that is like saying color TV  is better than black-and-white. The Honeymooners is, IMO, one of the greatest TV shows of all time, and King of Queens or Big Bang Theory are absolute crap in comparison, but those shows came later and with more modern technology and sensibilities. Likewise, was Mark McGwire a better player than Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson because he, yes, had better stats?

It’s probably hard to be objective in that way if you weren’t present in the earlier period, but that’s not relevant. In the video game setting, otherwise, nothing earlier or later than your formative years would rate. I know a guy who grew up with and plays nothing but Atari (2600) and has no interest in later platforms, so he would rate any modern GOTY low. Likewise kids today would rate Adventure or Robotron crap, but they were excellent. 

We all have bias. Considering context is the only way to avoid it.

[Link | 2,708]

This is kind of thing I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, as I have just now in the past couple months (due to financial and other life issues) been getting into Breath of the Wild. Legend of Zelda 1 NES is very comparable to BOTW. Right from the start, you have nothing, can go anywhere, will probably get your ass kicked if you’re unprepared but there’s no other deterrent. A desolate, exploratory, and huge for the platform experience that encourages experimentation. And has graphics that are surpassed on other systems but amazing for where they are. 

Is anybody in video games now, going to rate these two games comparably? No, but that is what they deserve.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Link